Flames consumed the frail figure of a Buddhist monk on a busy Saigon street as an American reporter froze the image in time on film. That front-page photograph of the immolation of 73-year-old Thich Quang Duc in June 1963, was the first of many images of the Vietnam War that seared itself into the collective memory of a nation. For perhaps the first time, Americans were asked to take a close look at a little known war in a far off country; a war that soon would consume the American people and their passions. Media researchers have never agreed on the exact role of the media in, or their effect on, American society as a whole. However, studies have found that the angles, cultural frames, personal beliefs of reporters, and conventions of reporting, among other factors, combine to construct the news. These news constructs become images of reality for those who read and use the news. The central ideas, or that emerge from these news images can have a major affect on American political and foreign policy, policy makers, the public, and their leaders.1 A growing body of historical scholarship on the Vietnam War displays a degree of consensus that news coverage of the war had a great impact, both positively and negatively, on America's Vietnam policy. The tone and themes in media coverage of Vietnam changed from 1961 to 1968.2 The initial optimism and general support at the start of deeper American involvement in 1961 changed into growing skepticism about ultimate success and more cautious support by 1963. The cause for this change was a series of severe setbacks for South Vietnam and clear gains by the Communist Vietcong (VC) insurgency in that year. This skepticism and cautious support remained until the disillusioning Tet Offensive in 1968. After Tet, news coverage became more critical of continued American involvement in the war.3 Many studies of the early period of the Vietnam War (1961 to 1964) point to 1963 as a pivotal year for American policy and news coverage in Vietnam. Several critical events occurred that year which ended the initial optimism for a quick victory by the South Vietnamese Army (ARVN). In January, the VC defeated a superior ARVN force at the battle of Ap Bac. That summer, the Buddhist uprising exposed the weakness, repression, and unpopularity of the Ngo Dinh Diem regime. In November, the ARVN general staff staged a successful coup that ousted Diem and led to his unplanned assassination. The studies indicate that the news coverage of these events by the resident American reporters in Saigon had a significant impact on American policy and future media coverage of the conflict. Also, the news coverage strained relations between the government and the news media, and instilled a degree of institutional skepticism about the war among reporters.4 What follows is a study of the 1963 Buddhist uprising (known as the Buddhist Crisis), and David Halberstam's New York Times coverage of it. He was the only full-time reporter from the prestige papers who covered the crisis.5 The study involves a textual analysis of Halberstam's articles about the Buddhist Crisis published in the New York Times between May 29, 1963 and November 1, 1963, the day South Vietnamese generals staged the coup that overthrew Diem.6 It will examine how the themes Halberstam constructed in his coverage may have affected the policy of the American mission in Saigon, senior policy makers in Washington, including President John F. Kennedy, and relations between these policy makers and policy makers in the American news media.7 This study is significant because none of the extensive literature on this period has analyzed themes in the news coverage of the Buddhist Crisis, nor has any study examined the conventions of journalism prevalent in the early 1960s that reporters applied to their coverage of the crisis. Among the factors influencing the historical context in which Halberstam wrote his articles were: (1) the significance of Vietnam to overall American foreign policy; (2) the use of news management by the Kennedy administration and the media's reaction to it; (3) the failure of news management and its connection to the breakdown of relations between the reporters and officials in Vietnam; (4) the nature of journalistic practices and conventions current in the early 1960s; and (5) the presence of a paradox in journalism at the time, i. …
Read full abstract